Pathway Summary

Consort map

Demographic information

Characteristic

N

Overall, N = 391

control, N = 191

treatment, N = 201

p-value2

age

39

50.16 ± 13.09 (25 - 72)

49.31 ± 13.19 (25 - 72)

50.98 ± 13.28 (32 - 72)

0.696

gender

39

0.257

f

26 (67%)

11 (58%)

15 (75%)

m

13 (33%)

8 (42%)

5 (25%)

occupation

39

0.946

full_time

5 (13%)

3 (16%)

2 (10%)

homemaker

2 (5.1%)

1 (5.3%)

1 (5.0%)

other

2 (5.1%)

0 (0%)

2 (10%)

part_time

6 (15%)

4 (21%)

2 (10%)

retired

11 (28%)

5 (26%)

6 (30%)

self_employ

2 (5.1%)

1 (5.3%)

1 (5.0%)

t_and_e

2 (5.1%)

1 (5.3%)

1 (5.0%)

unemploy

9 (23%)

4 (21%)

5 (25%)

marital

39

>0.999

divore

5 (13%)

3 (16%)

2 (10%)

married

7 (18%)

3 (16%)

4 (20%)

none

21 (54%)

10 (53%)

11 (55%)

seperation

3 (7.7%)

2 (11%)

1 (5.0%)

widow

3 (7.7%)

1 (5.3%)

2 (10%)

edu

39

0.479

bachelor

12 (31%)

5 (26%)

7 (35%)

diploma

7 (18%)

5 (26%)

2 (10%)

hd_ad

1 (2.6%)

1 (5.3%)

0 (0%)

postgraduate

4 (10%)

2 (11%)

2 (10%)

primary

4 (10%)

1 (5.3%)

3 (15%)

secondary_1_3

2 (5.1%)

0 (0%)

2 (10%)

secondary_4_5

8 (21%)

5 (26%)

3 (15%)

secondary_6_7

1 (2.6%)

0 (0%)

1 (5.0%)

fam_income

39

0.863

10001_12000

3 (7.7%)

1 (5.3%)

2 (10%)

12001_14000

1 (2.6%)

1 (5.3%)

0 (0%)

14001_16000

4 (10%)

1 (5.3%)

3 (15%)

16001_18000

2 (5.1%)

1 (5.3%)

1 (5.0%)

18001_20000

1 (2.6%)

1 (5.3%)

0 (0%)

20001_above

7 (18%)

5 (26%)

2 (10%)

2001_4000

5 (13%)

2 (11%)

3 (15%)

4001_6000

6 (15%)

3 (16%)

3 (15%)

6001_8000

3 (7.7%)

2 (11%)

1 (5.0%)

8001_10000

3 (7.7%)

1 (5.3%)

2 (10%)

below_2000

4 (10%)

1 (5.3%)

3 (15%)

medication

39

34 (87%)

16 (84%)

18 (90%)

0.661

onset_duration

39

16.70 ± 12.83 (0 - 56)

17.78 ± 15.00 (1 - 56)

15.68 ± 10.66 (0 - 35)

0.616

onset_age

39

33.46 ± 12.66 (15 - 62)

31.53 ± 11.38 (16 - 55)

35.30 ± 13.82 (15 - 62)

0.360

1Mean ± SD (Range); n (%)

2Two Sample t-test; Pearson's Chi-squared test; Fisher's exact test

Measurement

Table

Characteristic

N

Overall, N = 391

control, N = 191

treatment, N = 201

p-value2

recovery_stage_a

39

3.54 ± 1.23 (1 - 5)

3.58 ± 1.22 (1 - 5)

3.50 ± 1.28 (1 - 5)

0.845

recovery_stage_b

39

18.41 ± 2.74 (9 - 23)

18.53 ± 3.03 (9 - 23)

18.30 ± 2.52 (14 - 23)

0.800

ras_confidence

39

31.28 ± 4.45 (22 - 40)

31.00 ± 3.86 (26 - 40)

31.55 ± 5.03 (22 - 39)

0.705

ras_willingness

39

12.33 ± 2.04 (7 - 15)

12.53 ± 1.71 (9 - 15)

12.15 ± 2.35 (7 - 15)

0.572

ras_goal

39

17.92 ± 2.99 (12 - 24)

18.11 ± 2.73 (13 - 23)

17.75 ± 3.29 (12 - 24)

0.716

ras_reliance

39

13.46 ± 3.21 (8 - 20)

13.42 ± 2.89 (8 - 18)

13.50 ± 3.56 (8 - 20)

0.940

ras_domination

39

10.26 ± 2.52 (3 - 15)

11.11 ± 1.73 (8 - 15)

9.45 ± 2.91 (3 - 14)

0.039

symptom

39

29.69 ± 10.67 (14 - 56)

28.53 ± 9.00 (14 - 45)

30.80 ± 12.18 (15 - 56)

0.513

slof_work

39

23.23 ± 5.09 (10 - 30)

24.05 ± 4.60 (15 - 30)

22.45 ± 5.52 (10 - 30)

0.332

slof_relationship

39

26.82 ± 5.74 (11 - 35)

27.84 ± 5.33 (19 - 35)

25.85 ± 6.08 (11 - 35)

0.285

satisfaction

39

21.62 ± 6.99 (5 - 30)

20.47 ± 6.74 (5 - 29)

22.70 ± 7.23 (5 - 30)

0.327

mhc_emotional

39

11.85 ± 3.48 (4 - 18)

11.42 ± 2.87 (7 - 17)

12.25 ± 4.01 (4 - 18)

0.465

mhc_social

39

15.26 ± 4.89 (6 - 25)

15.68 ± 4.50 (8 - 25)

14.85 ± 5.32 (6 - 23)

0.601

mhc_psychological

39

23.08 ± 5.89 (6 - 36)

22.63 ± 5.45 (13 - 33)

23.50 ± 6.39 (6 - 36)

0.651

resilisnce

39

17.23 ± 4.80 (6 - 25)

17.16 ± 4.48 (6 - 24)

17.30 ± 5.20 (7 - 25)

0.928

social_provision

39

13.74 ± 3.21 (5 - 20)

13.79 ± 2.80 (10 - 20)

13.70 ± 3.63 (5 - 19)

0.932

els_value_living

39

17.38 ± 3.02 (5 - 23)

17.26 ± 1.82 (13 - 20)

17.50 ± 3.89 (5 - 23)

0.810

els_life_fulfill

39

13.26 ± 3.38 (4 - 18)

12.58 ± 3.31 (5 - 17)

13.90 ± 3.40 (4 - 18)

0.227

els

39

30.64 ± 5.70 (9 - 40)

29.84 ± 4.14 (22 - 36)

31.40 ± 6.89 (9 - 40)

0.400

social_connect

39

26.31 ± 10.41 (8 - 48)

26.00 ± 9.10 (8 - 45)

26.60 ± 11.75 (8 - 48)

0.860

shs_agency

39

14.46 ± 4.76 (3 - 20)

14.42 ± 4.03 (3 - 20)

14.50 ± 5.47 (3 - 20)

0.960

shs_pathway

39

16.92 ± 3.69 (4 - 22)

16.63 ± 2.91 (9 - 21)

17.20 ± 4.37 (4 - 22)

0.637

shs

39

31.38 ± 7.78 (7 - 42)

31.05 ± 6.51 (16 - 41)

31.70 ± 8.99 (7 - 42)

0.799

esteem

39

12.62 ± 1.16 (10 - 15)

12.84 ± 0.90 (11 - 14)

12.40 ± 1.35 (10 - 15)

0.240

mlq_search

39

15.51 ± 3.19 (3 - 21)

15.79 ± 2.62 (12 - 21)

15.25 ± 3.71 (3 - 20)

0.605

mlq_presence

39

13.90 ± 4.00 (3 - 21)

14.79 ± 2.20 (12 - 19)

13.05 ± 5.08 (3 - 21)

0.178

mlq

39

29.41 ± 6.47 (6 - 41)

30.58 ± 4.59 (25 - 40)

28.30 ± 7.81 (6 - 41)

0.277

empower

39

20.26 ± 4.28 (6 - 28)

20.74 ± 3.07 (14 - 24)

19.80 ± 5.22 (6 - 28)

0.502

ismi_resistance

39

15.08 ± 2.87 (5 - 20)

15.16 ± 2.17 (12 - 19)

15.00 ± 3.46 (5 - 20)

0.866

ismi_discrimation

39

11.18 ± 3.31 (5 - 19)

12.11 ± 3.14 (5 - 17)

10.30 ± 3.29 (5 - 19)

0.089

sss_affective

39

9.49 ± 4.32 (3 - 18)

9.84 ± 3.62 (3 - 15)

9.15 ± 4.97 (3 - 18)

0.624

sss_behavior

39

9.62 ± 4.53 (3 - 18)

10.32 ± 4.45 (3 - 18)

8.95 ± 4.63 (3 - 18)

0.354

sss_cognitive

39

7.95 ± 4.13 (3 - 18)

7.58 ± 3.81 (3 - 15)

8.30 ± 4.49 (3 - 18)

0.592

sss

39

27.05 ± 12.07 (9 - 54)

27.74 ± 10.42 (9 - 44)

26.40 ± 13.69 (9 - 54)

0.734

1Mean ± SD (Range)

2Two Sample t-test

Plot

Data analysis

Table

Group

Characteristic

Beta

SE1

95% CI1

p-value

recovery_stage_a

(Intercept)

3.58

0.277

3.04, 4.12

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

-0.079

0.387

-0.837, 0.680

0.839

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

0.142

0.462

-0.763, 1.05

0.768

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.581

0.703

-0.798, 1.96

0.438

Pseudo R square

0.021

recovery_stage_b

(Intercept)

18.5

0.632

17.3, 19.8

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

-0.226

0.882

-1.96, 1.50

0.799

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

-0.601

0.606

-1.79, 0.587

0.366

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

1.47

0.925

-0.340, 3.29

0.171

Pseudo R square

0.009

ras_confidence

(Intercept)

31.0

1.020

29.0, 33.0

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

0.550

1.425

-2.24, 3.34

0.702

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

-0.190

1.061

-2.27, 1.89

0.865

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.802

1.619

-2.37, 3.98

0.641

Pseudo R square

0.007

ras_willingness

(Intercept)

12.5

0.464

11.6, 13.4

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

-0.376

0.648

-1.65, 0.894

0.565

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

-0.849

0.597

-2.02, 0.320

0.209

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.593

0.910

-1.19, 2.38

0.541

Pseudo R square

0.018

ras_goal

(Intercept)

18.1

0.684

16.8, 19.4

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

-0.355

0.955

-2.23, 1.52

0.712

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

-0.309

0.647

-1.58, 0.959

0.651

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.464

0.987

-1.47, 2.40

0.656

Pseudo R square

0.003

ras_reliance

(Intercept)

13.4

0.744

12.0, 14.9

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

0.079

1.039

-1.96, 2.12

0.940

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

0.027

0.643

-1.23, 1.29

0.968

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.762

0.981

-1.16, 2.68

0.469

Pseudo R square

0.004

ras_domination

(Intercept)

11.1

0.553

10.0, 12.2

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

-1.66

0.773

-3.17, -0.141

0.038

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

-1.85

1.036

-3.88, 0.180

0.109

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

3.54

1.574

0.458, 6.63

0.051

Pseudo R square

0.112

symptom

(Intercept)

28.5

2.461

23.7, 33.3

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

2.27

3.437

-4.46, 9.01

0.512

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

-2.80

1.633

-6.00, 0.403

0.147

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

3.81

2.493

-1.08, 8.69

0.186

Pseudo R square

0.024

slof_work

(Intercept)

24.1

1.157

21.8, 26.3

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

-1.60

1.615

-4.77, 1.56

0.328

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

-1.71

0.877

-3.42, 0.011

0.109

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

1.59

1.338

-1.03, 4.22

0.287

Pseudo R square

0.025

slof_relationship

(Intercept)

27.8

1.296

25.3, 30.4

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

-1.99

1.809

-5.54, 1.55

0.278

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

-3.37

1.202

-5.72, -1.01

0.036

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

4.87

1.835

1.28, 8.47

0.043

Pseudo R square

0.040

satisfaction

(Intercept)

20.5

1.604

17.3, 23.6

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

2.23

2.240

-2.16, 6.62

0.327

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

3.01

1.568

-0.058, 6.09

0.112

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-0.862

2.393

-5.55, 3.83

0.733

Pseudo R square

0.038

mhc_emotional

(Intercept)

11.4

0.782

9.89, 13.0

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

0.829

1.092

-1.31, 2.97

0.452

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

1.11

1.867

-2.55, 4.77

0.572

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

1.88

2.813

-3.63, 7.39

0.521

Pseudo R square

0.070

mhc_social

(Intercept)

15.7

1.230

13.3, 18.1

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

-0.834

1.718

-4.20, 2.53

0.630

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

3.38

2.437

-1.39, 8.16

0.184

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-4.48

3.702

-11.7, 2.78

0.243

Pseudo R square

0.051

mhc_psychological

(Intercept)

22.6

1.354

20.0, 25.3

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

0.868

1.891

-2.84, 4.57

0.648

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

1.74

3.090

-4.31, 7.80

0.581

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-2.21

4.671

-11.4, 6.95

0.643

Pseudo R square

0.009

resilisnce

(Intercept)

17.2

1.109

15.0, 19.3

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

0.142

1.548

-2.89, 3.18

0.927

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

0.314

0.926

-1.50, 2.13

0.748

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-2.78

1.413

-5.55, -0.006

0.105

Pseudo R square

0.016

social_provision

(Intercept)

13.8

0.737

12.3, 15.2

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

-0.089

1.030

-2.11, 1.93

0.931

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

-0.197

0.609

-1.39, 0.996

0.759

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.936

0.930

-0.887, 2.76

0.360

Pseudo R square

0.003

els_value_living

(Intercept)

17.3

0.700

15.9, 18.6

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

0.237

0.977

-1.68, 2.15

0.810

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

-0.232

0.412

-1.04, 0.575

0.597

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-0.058

0.628

-1.29, 1.17

0.930

Pseudo R square

0.003

els_life_fulfill

(Intercept)

12.6

0.764

11.1, 14.1

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

1.32

1.067

-0.771, 3.41

0.224

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

0.739

0.865

-0.957, 2.43

0.432

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-0.439

1.320

-3.03, 2.15

0.753

Pseudo R square

0.038

els

(Intercept)

29.8

1.309

27.3, 32.4

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

1.56

1.828

-2.03, 5.14

0.400

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

0.408

1.076

-1.70, 2.52

0.720

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-0.502

1.642

-3.72, 2.72

0.772

Pseudo R square

0.017

social_connect

(Intercept)

26.0

2.417

21.3, 30.7

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

0.600

3.375

-6.01, 7.21

0.860

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

4.52

1.362

1.85, 7.19

0.020

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

1.87

2.079

-2.21, 5.94

0.410

Pseudo R square

0.035

shs_agency

(Intercept)

14.4

1.105

12.3, 16.6

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

0.079

1.543

-2.95, 3.10

0.959

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

2.53

0.827

0.915, 4.16

0.028

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-1.97

1.262

-4.44, 0.503

0.179

Pseudo R square

0.022

shs_pathway

(Intercept)

16.6

0.844

15.0, 18.3

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

0.568

1.179

-1.74, 2.88

0.632

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

1.02

0.970

-0.883, 2.92

0.343

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-0.271

1.479

-3.17, 2.63

0.862

Pseudo R square

0.012

shs

(Intercept)

31.1

1.804

27.5, 34.6

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

0.647

2.520

-4.29, 5.59

0.799

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

3.52

0.885

1.78, 5.25

0.011

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-2.68

1.352

-5.33, -0.032

0.104

Pseudo R square

0.015

esteem

(Intercept)

12.8

0.260

12.3, 13.4

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

-0.442

0.364

-1.15, 0.271

0.231

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

0.215

0.600

-0.962, 1.39

0.729

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-0.160

0.907

-1.94, 1.62

0.864

Pseudo R square

0.045

mlq_search

(Intercept)

15.8

0.738

14.3, 17.2

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

-0.539

1.030

-2.56, 1.48

0.604

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

0.240

1.108

-1.93, 2.41

0.837

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.470

1.688

-2.84, 3.78

0.791

Pseudo R square

0.009

mlq_presence

(Intercept)

14.8

0.905

13.0, 16.6

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

-1.74

1.263

-4.22, 0.737

0.177

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

-0.158

0.755

-1.64, 1.32

0.842

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-1.21

1.153

-3.47, 1.05

0.342

Pseudo R square

0.062

mlq

(Intercept)

30.6

1.476

27.7, 33.5

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

-2.28

2.061

-6.32, 1.76

0.276

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

0.180

1.729

-3.21, 3.57

0.921

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-0.688

2.637

-5.86, 4.48

0.804

Pseudo R square

0.034

empower

(Intercept)

20.7

0.979

18.8, 22.7

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

-0.937

1.368

-3.62, 1.74

0.498

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

-0.422

0.741

-1.87, 1.03

0.594

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-0.463

1.131

-2.68, 1.75

0.699

Pseudo R square

0.016

ismi_resistance

(Intercept)

15.2

0.637

13.9, 16.4

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

-0.158

0.889

-1.90, 1.58

0.860

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

-0.932

1.277

-3.43, 1.57

0.502

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

1.49

1.939

-2.31, 5.29

0.478

Pseudo R square

0.011

ismi_discrimation

(Intercept)

12.1

0.718

10.7, 13.5

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

-1.81

1.003

-3.77, 0.160

0.080

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

-1.04

1.294

-3.58, 1.49

0.469

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

1.12

1.969

-2.74, 4.98

0.602

Pseudo R square

0.071

sss_affective

(Intercept)

9.84

0.997

7.89, 11.8

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

-0.692

1.393

-3.42, 2.04

0.622

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

-0.036

0.822

-1.65, 1.57

0.967

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-0.652

1.254

-3.11, 1.81

0.626

Pseudo R square

0.009

sss_behavior

(Intercept)

10.3

1.035

8.29, 12.3

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

-1.37

1.445

-4.20, 1.47

0.351

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

-0.559

0.881

-2.28, 1.17

0.554

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-0.086

1.344

-2.72, 2.55

0.952

Pseudo R square

0.025

sss_cognitive

(Intercept)

7.58

0.949

5.72, 9.44

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

0.721

1.326

-1.88, 3.32

0.590

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

2.49

1.402

-0.257, 5.24

0.138

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-3.91

2.136

-8.10, 0.272

0.128

Pseudo R square

0.033

sss

(Intercept)

27.7

2.787

22.3, 33.2

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

-1.34

3.892

-8.96, 6.29

0.733

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

1.65

2.524

-3.30, 6.60

0.543

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-4.03

3.853

-11.6, 3.52

0.343

Pseudo R square

0.010

1SE = Standard Error, CI = Confidence Interval

Text

recovery_stage_a

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict recovery_stage_a with group and time_point (formula: recovery_stage_a ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.67) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 3.58 (95% CI [3.04, 4.12], t(40) = 12.91, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.08, 95% CI [-0.84, 0.68], t(40) = -0.20, p = 0.838; Std. beta = -0.07, 95% CI [-0.71, 0.58])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.14, 95% CI [-0.76, 1.05], t(40) = 0.31, p = 0.758; Std. beta = 0.12, 95% CI [-0.65, 0.89])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.58, 95% CI [-0.80, 1.96], t(40) = 0.83, p = 0.409; Std. beta = 0.49, 95% CI [-0.68, 1.66])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

recovery_stage_b

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict recovery_stage_b with group and time_point (formula: recovery_stage_b ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.90) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 9.22e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 18.53 (95% CI [17.29, 19.76], t(40) = 29.32, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.23, 95% CI [-1.96, 1.50], t(40) = -0.26, p = 0.798; Std. beta = -0.08, 95% CI [-0.73, 0.56])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.60, 95% CI [-1.79, 0.59], t(40) = -0.99, p = 0.321; Std. beta = -0.23, 95% CI [-0.67, 0.22])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.47, 95% CI [-0.34, 3.29], t(40) = 1.59, p = 0.111; Std. beta = 0.55, 95% CI [-0.13, 1.23])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

ras_confidence

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_confidence with group and time_point (formula: ras_confidence ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.88) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 6.86e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 31.00 (95% CI [29.00, 33.00], t(40) = 30.38, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.55, 95% CI [-2.24, 3.34], t(40) = 0.39, p = 0.699; Std. beta = 0.13, 95% CI [-0.51, 0.76])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.19, 95% CI [-2.27, 1.89], t(40) = -0.18, p = 0.858; Std. beta = -0.04, 95% CI [-0.52, 0.43])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.80, 95% CI [-2.37, 3.98], t(40) = 0.50, p = 0.620; Std. beta = 0.18, 95% CI [-0.54, 0.91])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

ras_willingness

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_willingness with group and time_point (formula: ras_willingness ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.82) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 12.53 (95% CI [11.62, 13.44], t(40) = 27.00, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.38, 95% CI [-1.65, 0.89], t(40) = -0.58, p = 0.561; Std. beta = -0.19, 95% CI [-0.83, 0.45])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.85, 95% CI [-2.02, 0.32], t(40) = -1.42, p = 0.155; Std. beta = -0.43, 95% CI [-1.01, 0.16])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.59, 95% CI [-1.19, 2.38], t(40) = 0.65, p = 0.515; Std. beta = 0.30, 95% CI [-0.60, 1.19])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

ras_goal

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_goal with group and time_point (formula: ras_goal ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.90) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 3.21e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 18.11 (95% CI [16.76, 19.45], t(40) = 26.47, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.36, 95% CI [-2.23, 1.52], t(40) = -0.37, p = 0.710; Std. beta = -0.12, 95% CI [-0.76, 0.52])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.31, 95% CI [-1.58, 0.96], t(40) = -0.48, p = 0.633; Std. beta = -0.11, 95% CI [-0.54, 0.33])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.46, 95% CI [-1.47, 2.40], t(40) = 0.47, p = 0.638; Std. beta = 0.16, 95% CI [-0.50, 0.82])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

ras_reliance

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_reliance with group and time_point (formula: ras_reliance ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.92) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 4.17e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 13.42 (95% CI [11.96, 14.88], t(40) = 18.03, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.08, 95% CI [-1.96, 2.12], t(40) = 0.08, p = 0.939; Std. beta = 0.02, 95% CI [-0.60, 0.65])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.03, 95% CI [-1.23, 1.29], t(40) = 0.04, p = 0.967; Std. beta = 8.23e-03, 95% CI [-0.38, 0.40])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.76, 95% CI [-1.16, 2.68], t(40) = 0.78, p = 0.438; Std. beta = 0.23, 95% CI [-0.36, 0.83])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

ras_domination

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_domination with group and time_point (formula: ras_domination ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.60) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.11. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 11.11 (95% CI [10.02, 12.19], t(40) = 20.07, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically significant and negative (beta = -1.66, 95% CI [-3.17, -0.14], t(40) = -2.14, p = 0.032; Std. beta = -0.66, 95% CI [-1.27, -0.06])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.85, 95% CI [-3.88, 0.18], t(40) = -1.79, p = 0.074; Std. beta = -0.74, 95% CI [-1.55, 0.07])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 3.54, 95% CI [0.46, 6.63], t(40) = 2.25, p = 0.024; Std. beta = 1.42, 95% CI [0.18, 2.65])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

symptom

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict symptom with group and time_point (formula: symptom ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.95) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 28.53 (95% CI [23.70, 33.35], t(40) = 11.59, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 2.27, 95% CI [-4.46, 9.01], t(40) = 0.66, p = 0.508; Std. beta = 0.22, 95% CI [-0.42, 0.85])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -2.80, 95% CI [-6.00, 0.40], t(40) = -1.71, p = 0.087; Std. beta = -0.26, 95% CI [-0.57, 0.04])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 3.81, 95% CI [-1.08, 8.69], t(40) = 1.53, p = 0.127; Std. beta = 0.36, 95% CI [-0.10, 0.82])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

slof_work

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict slof_work with group and time_point (formula: slof_work ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.94) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 24.05 (95% CI [21.79, 26.32], t(40) = 20.79, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.60, 95% CI [-4.77, 1.56], t(40) = -0.99, p = 0.321; Std. beta = -0.33, 95% CI [-1.00, 0.33])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.71, 95% CI [-3.42, 0.01], t(40) = -1.95, p = 0.052; Std. beta = -0.36, 95% CI [-0.71, 2.36e-03])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.59, 95% CI [-1.03, 4.22], t(40) = 1.19, p = 0.234; Std. beta = 0.33, 95% CI [-0.21, 0.88])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

slof_relationship

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict slof_relationship with group and time_point (formula: slof_relationship ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.91) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.04. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 27.84 (95% CI [25.30, 30.38], t(40) = 21.49, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.99, 95% CI [-5.54, 1.55], t(40) = -1.10, p = 0.271; Std. beta = -0.36, 95% CI [-1.01, 0.28])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically significant and negative (beta = -3.37, 95% CI [-5.72, -1.01], t(40) = -2.80, p = 0.005; Std. beta = -0.61, 95% CI [-1.04, -0.18])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 4.87, 95% CI [1.28, 8.47], t(40) = 2.66, p = 0.008; Std. beta = 0.88, 95% CI [0.23, 1.54])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

satisfaction

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict satisfaction with group and time_point (formula: satisfaction ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.90) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.04. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 20.47 (95% CI [17.33, 23.62], t(40) = 12.76, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 2.23, 95% CI [-2.16, 6.62], t(40) = 0.99, p = 0.320; Std. beta = 0.32, 95% CI [-0.31, 0.95])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 3.01, 95% CI [-0.06, 6.09], t(40) = 1.92, p = 0.054; Std. beta = 0.43, 95% CI [-8.34e-03, 0.88])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.86, 95% CI [-5.55, 3.83], t(40) = -0.36, p = 0.719; Std. beta = -0.12, 95% CI [-0.80, 0.55])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

mhc_emotional

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mhc_emotional with group and time_point (formula: mhc_emotional ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is weak (conditional R2 = 0.09) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.07. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 11.42 (95% CI [9.89, 12.95], t(40) = 14.60, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.83, 95% CI [-1.31, 2.97], t(40) = 0.76, p = 0.448; Std. beta = 0.24, 95% CI [-0.38, 0.87])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.11, 95% CI [-2.55, 4.77], t(40) = 0.59, p = 0.553; Std. beta = 0.32, 95% CI [-0.74, 1.39])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.88, 95% CI [-3.63, 7.39], t(40) = 0.67, p = 0.504; Std. beta = 0.55, 95% CI [-1.06, 2.16])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

mhc_social

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mhc_social with group and time_point (formula: mhc_social ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.51) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.05. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 15.68 (95% CI [13.27, 18.10], t(40) = 12.75, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.83, 95% CI [-4.20, 2.53], t(40) = -0.49, p = 0.627; Std. beta = -0.15, 95% CI [-0.77, 0.47])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 3.38, 95% CI [-1.39, 8.16], t(40) = 1.39, p = 0.165; Std. beta = 0.62, 95% CI [-0.26, 1.51])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -4.48, 95% CI [-11.74, 2.78], t(40) = -1.21, p = 0.226; Std. beta = -0.83, 95% CI [-2.16, 0.51])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

mhc_psychological

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mhc_psychological with group and time_point (formula: mhc_psychological ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is moderate (conditional R2 = 0.21) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 8.55e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 22.63 (95% CI [19.98, 25.29], t(40) = 16.71, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.87, 95% CI [-2.84, 4.57], t(40) = 0.46, p = 0.646; Std. beta = 0.15, 95% CI [-0.50, 0.80])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.74, 95% CI [-4.31, 7.80], t(40) = 0.56, p = 0.573; Std. beta = 0.30, 95% CI [-0.75, 1.36])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -2.21, 95% CI [-11.36, 6.95], t(40) = -0.47, p = 0.637; Std. beta = -0.39, 95% CI [-1.99, 1.22])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

resilisnce

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict resilisnce with group and time_point (formula: resilisnce ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.93) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 17.16 (95% CI [14.98, 19.33], t(40) = 15.48, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.14, 95% CI [-2.89, 3.18], t(40) = 0.09, p = 0.927; Std. beta = 0.03, 95% CI [-0.63, 0.69])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.31, 95% CI [-1.50, 2.13], t(40) = 0.34, p = 0.735; Std. beta = 0.07, 95% CI [-0.33, 0.46])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically significant and negative (beta = -2.78, 95% CI [-5.55, -5.66e-03], t(40) = -1.96, p = 0.050; Std. beta = -0.61, 95% CI [-1.21, -1.23e-03])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

social_provision

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict social_provision with group and time_point (formula: social_provision ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.93) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 3.36e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 13.79 (95% CI [12.34, 15.23], t(40) = 18.70, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.09, 95% CI [-2.11, 1.93], t(40) = -0.09, p = 0.931; Std. beta = -0.03, 95% CI [-0.70, 0.64])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.20, 95% CI [-1.39, 1.00], t(40) = -0.32, p = 0.746; Std. beta = -0.07, 95% CI [-0.46, 0.33])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.94, 95% CI [-0.89, 2.76], t(40) = 1.01, p = 0.314; Std. beta = 0.31, 95% CI [-0.29, 0.92])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

els_value_living

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict els_value_living with group and time_point (formula: els_value_living ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.96) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 2.52e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 17.26 (95% CI [15.89, 18.63], t(40) = 24.67, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.24, 95% CI [-1.68, 2.15], t(40) = 0.24, p = 0.808; Std. beta = 0.08, 95% CI [-0.58, 0.74])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.23, 95% CI [-1.04, 0.57], t(40) = -0.56, p = 0.573; Std. beta = -0.08, 95% CI [-0.36, 0.20])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.06, 95% CI [-1.29, 1.17], t(40) = -0.09, p = 0.926; Std. beta = -0.02, 95% CI [-0.44, 0.40])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

els_life_fulfill

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict els_life_fulfill with group and time_point (formula: els_life_fulfill ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.86) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.04. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 12.58 (95% CI [11.08, 14.08], t(40) = 16.46, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.32, 95% CI [-0.77, 3.41], t(40) = 1.24, p = 0.216; Std. beta = 0.40, 95% CI [-0.24, 1.05])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.74, 95% CI [-0.96, 2.43], t(40) = 0.85, p = 0.393; Std. beta = 0.23, 95% CI [-0.29, 0.75])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.44, 95% CI [-3.03, 2.15], t(40) = -0.33, p = 0.740; Std. beta = -0.13, 95% CI [-0.93, 0.66])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

els

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict els with group and time_point (formula: els ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.93) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 29.84 (95% CI [27.28, 32.41], t(40) = 22.79, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.56, 95% CI [-2.03, 5.14], t(40) = 0.85, p = 0.394; Std. beta = 0.28, 95% CI [-0.37, 0.93])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.41, 95% CI [-1.70, 2.52], t(40) = 0.38, p = 0.705; Std. beta = 0.07, 95% CI [-0.31, 0.46])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.50, 95% CI [-3.72, 2.72], t(40) = -0.31, p = 0.760; Std. beta = -0.09, 95% CI [-0.67, 0.49])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

social_connect

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict social_connect with group and time_point (formula: social_connect ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.97) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 26.00 (95% CI [21.26, 30.74], t(40) = 10.76, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.60, 95% CI [-6.01, 7.21], t(40) = 0.18, p = 0.859; Std. beta = 0.06, 95% CI [-0.60, 0.72])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 4.52, 95% CI [1.85, 7.19], t(40) = 3.32, p < .001; Std. beta = 0.45, 95% CI [0.18, 0.71])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.87, 95% CI [-2.21, 5.94], t(40) = 0.90, p = 0.370; Std. beta = 0.19, 95% CI [-0.22, 0.59])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

shs_agency

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict shs_agency with group and time_point (formula: shs_agency ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.94) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 14.42 (95% CI [12.25, 16.59], t(40) = 13.05, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.08, 95% CI [-2.95, 3.10], t(40) = 0.05, p = 0.959; Std. beta = 0.02, 95% CI [-0.63, 0.67])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 2.53, 95% CI [0.91, 4.16], t(40) = 3.07, p = 0.002; Std. beta = 0.55, 95% CI [0.20, 0.89])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.97, 95% CI [-4.44, 0.50], t(40) = -1.56, p = 0.119; Std. beta = -0.42, 95% CI [-0.96, 0.11])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

shs_pathway

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict shs_pathway with group and time_point (formula: shs_pathway ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.85) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 16.63 (95% CI [14.98, 18.29], t(40) = 19.71, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.57, 95% CI [-1.74, 2.88], t(40) = 0.48, p = 0.630; Std. beta = 0.16, 95% CI [-0.49, 0.81])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.02, 95% CI [-0.88, 2.92], t(40) = 1.05, p = 0.294; Std. beta = 0.29, 95% CI [-0.25, 0.83])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.27, 95% CI [-3.17, 2.63], t(40) = -0.18, p = 0.855; Std. beta = -0.08, 95% CI [-0.90, 0.74])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

shs

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict shs with group and time_point (formula: shs ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.97) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 31.05 (95% CI [27.52, 34.59], t(40) = 17.21, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.65, 95% CI [-4.29, 5.59], t(40) = 0.26, p = 0.797; Std. beta = 0.09, 95% CI [-0.57, 0.74])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 3.52, 95% CI [1.78, 5.25], t(40) = 3.97, p < .001; Std. beta = 0.47, 95% CI [0.24, 0.69])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically significant and negative (beta = -2.68, 95% CI [-5.33, -0.03], t(40) = -1.98, p = 0.047; Std. beta = -0.35, 95% CI [-0.71, -4.27e-03])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

esteem

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict esteem with group and time_point (formula: esteem ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is moderate (conditional R2 = 0.20) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.04. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 12.84 (95% CI [12.33, 13.35], t(40) = 49.32, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.44, 95% CI [-1.15, 0.27], t(40) = -1.22, p = 0.224; Std. beta = -0.39, 95% CI [-1.03, 0.24])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.21, 95% CI [-0.96, 1.39], t(40) = 0.36, p = 0.721; Std. beta = 0.19, 95% CI [-0.86, 1.24])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.16, 95% CI [-1.94, 1.62], t(40) = -0.18, p = 0.860; Std. beta = -0.14, 95% CI [-1.73, 1.44])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

mlq_search

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mlq_search with group and time_point (formula: mlq_search ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.74) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 9.04e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 15.79 (95% CI [14.34, 17.24], t(40) = 21.40, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.54, 95% CI [-2.56, 1.48], t(40) = -0.52, p = 0.601; Std. beta = -0.17, 95% CI [-0.83, 0.48])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.24, 95% CI [-1.93, 2.41], t(40) = 0.22, p = 0.829; Std. beta = 0.08, 95% CI [-0.63, 0.78])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.47, 95% CI [-2.84, 3.78], t(40) = 0.28, p = 0.781; Std. beta = 0.15, 95% CI [-0.92, 1.22])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

mlq_presence

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mlq_presence with group and time_point (formula: mlq_presence ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.93) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.06. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 14.79 (95% CI [13.02, 16.56], t(40) = 16.35, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.74, 95% CI [-4.22, 0.74], t(40) = -1.38, p = 0.169; Std. beta = -0.46, 95% CI [-1.11, 0.19])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.16, 95% CI [-1.64, 1.32], t(40) = -0.21, p = 0.834; Std. beta = -0.04, 95% CI [-0.43, 0.35])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.21, 95% CI [-3.47, 1.05], t(40) = -1.05, p = 0.294; Std. beta = -0.32, 95% CI [-0.91, 0.28])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

mlq

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mlq with group and time_point (formula: mlq ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.85) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 30.58 (95% CI [27.69, 33.47], t(40) = 20.72, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -2.28, 95% CI [-6.32, 1.76], t(40) = -1.11, p = 0.269; Std. beta = -0.37, 95% CI [-1.02, 0.28])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.18, 95% CI [-3.21, 3.57], t(40) = 0.10, p = 0.917; Std. beta = 0.03, 95% CI [-0.52, 0.57])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.69, 95% CI [-5.86, 4.48], t(40) = -0.26, p = 0.794; Std. beta = -0.11, 95% CI [-0.94, 0.72])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

empower

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict empower with group and time_point (formula: empower ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.94) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 20.74 (95% CI [18.82, 22.66], t(40) = 21.17, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.94, 95% CI [-3.62, 1.74], t(40) = -0.68, p = 0.493; Std. beta = -0.23, 95% CI [-0.90, 0.44])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.42, 95% CI [-1.87, 1.03], t(40) = -0.57, p = 0.569; Std. beta = -0.11, 95% CI [-0.47, 0.26])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.46, 95% CI [-2.68, 1.75], t(40) = -0.41, p = 0.683; Std. beta = -0.12, 95% CI [-0.67, 0.44])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

ismi_resistance

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ismi_resistance with group and time_point (formula: ismi_resistance ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.47) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 15.16 (95% CI [13.91, 16.41], t(40) = 23.80, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.16, 95% CI [-1.90, 1.58], t(40) = -0.18, p = 0.859; Std. beta = -0.06, 95% CI [-0.71, 0.59])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.93, 95% CI [-3.43, 1.57], t(40) = -0.73, p = 0.466; Std. beta = -0.35, 95% CI [-1.28, 0.59])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.49, 95% CI [-2.31, 5.29], t(40) = 0.77, p = 0.441; Std. beta = 0.56, 95% CI [-0.86, 1.98])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

ismi_discrimation

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ismi_discrimation with group and time_point (formula: ismi_discrimation ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.62) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.07. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 12.11 (95% CI [10.70, 13.51], t(40) = 16.86, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.81, 95% CI [-3.77, 0.16], t(40) = -1.80, p = 0.072; Std. beta = -0.59, 95% CI [-1.22, 0.05])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.04, 95% CI [-3.58, 1.49], t(40) = -0.81, p = 0.420; Std. beta = -0.34, 95% CI [-1.16, 0.48])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.12, 95% CI [-2.74, 4.98], t(40) = 0.57, p = 0.570; Std. beta = 0.36, 95% CI [-0.89, 1.61])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

sss_affective

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict sss_affective with group and time_point (formula: sss_affective ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.93) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 9.50e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 9.84 (95% CI [7.89, 11.80], t(40) = 9.87, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.69, 95% CI [-3.42, 2.04], t(40) = -0.50, p = 0.619; Std. beta = -0.16, 95% CI [-0.79, 0.47])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.04, 95% CI [-1.65, 1.57], t(40) = -0.04, p = 0.965; Std. beta = -8.31e-03, 95% CI [-0.38, 0.36])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.65, 95% CI [-3.11, 1.81], t(40) = -0.52, p = 0.603; Std. beta = -0.15, 95% CI [-0.72, 0.42])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

sss_behavior

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict sss_behavior with group and time_point (formula: sss_behavior ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.92) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 10.32 (95% CI [8.29, 12.34], t(40) = 9.97, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.37, 95% CI [-4.20, 1.47], t(40) = -0.95, p = 0.345; Std. beta = -0.31, 95% CI [-0.95, 0.33])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.56, 95% CI [-2.28, 1.17], t(40) = -0.63, p = 0.526; Std. beta = -0.13, 95% CI [-0.51, 0.26])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.09, 95% CI [-2.72, 2.55], t(40) = -0.06, p = 0.949; Std. beta = -0.02, 95% CI [-0.61, 0.57])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

sss_cognitive

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict sss_cognitive with group and time_point (formula: sss_cognitive ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.75) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 7.58 (95% CI [5.72, 9.44], t(40) = 7.98, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.72, 95% CI [-1.88, 3.32], t(40) = 0.54, p = 0.587; Std. beta = 0.18, 95% CI [-0.46, 0.81])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 2.49, 95% CI [-0.26, 5.24], t(40) = 1.78, p = 0.076; Std. beta = 0.60, 95% CI [-0.06, 1.27])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -3.91, 95% CI [-8.10, 0.27], t(40) = -1.83, p = 0.067; Std. beta = -0.95, 95% CI [-1.97, 0.07])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

sss

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict sss with group and time_point (formula: sss ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.91) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 9.97e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 27.74 (95% CI [22.27, 33.20], t(40) = 9.95, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.34, 95% CI [-8.96, 6.29], t(40) = -0.34, p = 0.731; Std. beta = -0.11, 95% CI [-0.74, 0.52])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.65, 95% CI [-3.30, 6.60], t(40) = 0.65, p = 0.513; Std. beta = 0.14, 95% CI [-0.27, 0.55])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -4.03, 95% CI [-11.59, 3.52], t(40) = -1.05, p = 0.295; Std. beta = -0.33, 95% CI [-0.96, 0.29])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

Likelihood ratio tests

outcome

model

npar

AIC

BIC

logLik

deviance

Chisq

Df

p

recovery_stage_a

null

3

147.794

153.280

-70.897

141.794

recovery_stage_a

random

6

151.538

162.510

-69.769

139.538

2.256

3

0.521

recovery_stage_b

null

3

216.700

222.186

-105.350

210.700

recovery_stage_b

random

6

219.795

230.767

-103.898

207.795

2.905

3

0.407

ras_confidence

null

3

259.423

264.909

-126.712

253.423

ras_confidence

random

6

264.988

275.960

-126.494

252.988

0.435

3

0.933

ras_willingness

null

3

192.138

197.624

-93.069

186.138

ras_willingness

random

6

195.422

206.394

-91.711

183.422

2.716

3

0.438

ras_goal

null

3

221.322

226.808

-107.661

215.322

ras_goal

random

6

226.890

237.861

-107.445

214.890

0.433

3

0.933

ras_reliance

null

3

228.803

234.289

-111.401

222.803

ras_reliance

random

6

233.418

244.389

-110.709

221.418

1.385

3

0.709

ras_domination

null

3

218.623

224.109

-106.311

212.623

ras_domination

random

6

216.721

227.693

-102.361

204.721

7.902

3

0.048

symptom

null

3

337.922

343.407

-165.961

331.922

symptom

random

6

339.748

350.720

-163.874

327.748

4.173

3

0.243

slof_work

null

3

270.848

276.334

-132.424

264.848

slof_work

random

6

272.139

283.111

-130.070

260.139

4.709

3

0.194

slof_relationship

null

3

287.206

292.692

-140.603

281.206

slof_relationship

random

6

285.398

296.370

-136.699

273.398

7.809

3

0.050

satisfaction

null

3

305.947

311.433

-149.974

299.947

satisfaction

random

6

305.757

316.729

-146.879

293.757

6.190

3

0.103

mhc_emotional

null

3

247.175

252.661

-120.587

241.175

mhc_emotional

random

6

251.102

262.074

-119.551

239.102

2.072

3

0.558

mhc_social

null

3

287.950

293.436

-140.975

281.950

mhc_social

random

6

290.996

301.968

-139.498

278.996

2.954

3

0.399

mhc_psychological

null

3

295.871

301.357

-144.936

289.871

mhc_psychological

random

6

301.383

312.355

-144.692

289.383

0.488

3

0.922

resilisnce

null

3

268.401

273.887

-131.200

262.401

resilisnce

random

6

269.595

280.567

-128.798

257.595

4.805

3

0.187

social_provision

null

3

227.419

232.905

-110.710

221.419

social_provision

random

6

231.920

242.892

-109.960

219.920

1.500

3

0.682

els_value_living

null

3

217.365

222.851

-105.683

211.365

els_value_living

random

6

222.374

233.346

-105.187

210.374

0.992

3

0.803

els_life_fulfill

null

3

235.947

241.433

-114.974

229.947

els_life_fulfill

random

6

239.588

250.559

-113.794

227.588

2.360

3

0.501

els

null

3

279.567

285.053

-136.784

273.567

els

random

6

284.671

295.643

-136.335

272.671

0.896

3

0.826

social_connect

null

3

340.962

346.448

-167.481

334.962

social_connect

random

6

335.795

346.767

-161.897

323.795

11.167

3

0.011

shs_agency

null

3

269.697

275.183

-131.848

263.697

shs_agency

random

6

267.768

278.740

-127.884

255.768

7.929

3

0.048

shs_pathway

null

3

244.945

250.431

-119.473

238.945

shs_pathway

random

6

248.900

259.872

-118.450

236.900

2.045

3

0.563

shs

null

3

311.552

317.038

-152.776

305.552

shs

random

6

306.978

317.950

-147.489

294.978

10.574

3

0.014

esteem

null

3

145.932

151.418

-69.966

139.932

esteem

random

6

149.755

160.727

-68.878

137.755

2.176

3

0.537

mlq_search

null

3

234.846

240.332

-114.423

228.846

mlq_search

random

6

240.194

251.166

-114.097

228.194

0.652

3

0.885

mlq_presence

null

3

249.716

255.202

-121.858

243.716

mlq_presence

random

6

250.879

261.851

-119.440

238.879

4.836

3

0.184

mlq

null

3

296.150

301.636

-145.075

290.150

mlq

random

6

300.607

311.579

-144.304

288.607

1.543

3

0.672

empower

null

3

253.054

258.540

-123.527

247.054

empower

random

6

256.810

267.782

-122.405

244.810

2.244

3

0.523

ismi_resistance

null

3

225.279

230.765

-109.640

219.279

ismi_resistance

random

6

230.397

241.369

-109.198

218.397

0.882

3

0.830

ismi_discrimation

null

3

237.840

243.326

-115.920

231.840

ismi_discrimation

random

6

240.067

251.039

-114.034

228.067

3.773

3

0.287

sss_affective

null

3

254.524

260.010

-124.262

248.524

sss_affective

random

6

259.668

270.640

-123.834

247.668

0.856

3

0.836

sss_behavior

null

3

259.441

264.927

-126.721

253.441

sss_behavior

random

6

263.502

274.474

-125.751

251.502

1.939

3

0.585

sss_cognitive

null

3

261.532

267.018

-127.766

255.532

sss_cognitive

random

6

263.143

274.115

-125.571

251.143

4.389

3

0.222

sss

null

3

350.911

356.397

-172.455

344.911

sss

random

6

355.514

366.486

-171.757

343.514

1.396

3

0.706

Post hoc analysis

Table

outcome

time

control

treatment

between

n

estimate

within es

n

estimate

within es

p

es

recovery_stage_a

1st

19

3.58 ± 1.21

20

3.50 ± 1.21

0.839

0.112

recovery_stage_a

2nd

4

3.72 ± 1.03

-0.202

3

4.22 ± 1.02

-1.030

0.531

-0.715

recovery_stage_b

1st

19

18.53 ± 2.75

20

18.30 ± 2.75

0.799

0.259

recovery_stage_b

2nd

4

17.93 ± 1.67

0.687

3

19.17 ± 1.56

-0.996

0.322

-1.425

ras_confidence

1st

19

31.00 ± 4.45

20

31.55 ± 4.45

0.702

-0.358

ras_confidence

2nd

4

30.81 ± 2.81

0.124

3

32.16 ± 2.64

-0.398

0.522

-0.879

ras_willingness

1st

19

12.53 ± 2.02

20

12.15 ± 2.02

0.565

0.429

ras_willingness

2nd

4

11.68 ± 1.44

0.968

3

11.89 ± 1.38

0.292

0.843

-0.247

ras_goal

1st

19

18.11 ± 2.98

20

17.75 ± 2.98

0.712

0.381

ras_goal

2nd

4

17.80 ± 1.80

0.331

3

17.91 ± 1.67

-0.166

0.935

-0.117

ras_reliance

1st

19

13.42 ± 3.24

20

13.50 ± 3.24

0.940

-0.085

ras_reliance

2nd

4

13.45 ± 1.89

-0.029

3

14.29 ± 1.74

-0.853

0.548

-0.910

ras_domination

1st

19

11.11 ± 2.41

20

9.45 ± 2.41

0.038

1.026

ras_domination

2nd

4

9.26 ± 2.27

1.146

3

11.14 ± 2.26

-1.049

0.291

-1.170

symptom

1st

19

28.53 ± 10.73

20

30.80 ± 10.73

0.512

-0.976

symptom

2nd

4

25.73 ± 5.73

1.200

3

31.81 ± 5.15

-0.434

0.150

-2.610

slof_work

1st

19

24.05 ± 5.04

20

22.45 ± 5.04

0.327

1.277

slof_work

2nd

4

22.35 ± 2.80

1.360

3

22.34 ± 2.55

0.090

0.996

0.007

slof_relationship

1st

19

27.84 ± 5.65

20

25.85 ± 5.65

0.278

1.150

slof_relationship

2nd

4

24.47 ± 3.38

1.944

3

27.35 ± 3.14

-0.868

0.258

-1.662

satisfaction

1st

19

20.47 ± 6.99

20

22.70 ± 6.99

0.327

-0.983

satisfaction

2nd

4

23.49 ± 4.28

-1.331

3

24.85 ± 4.00

-0.951

0.670

-0.602

mhc_emotional

1st

19

11.42 ± 3.41

20

12.25 ± 3.41

0.452

-0.246

mhc_emotional

2nd

4

12.53 ± 3.91

-0.329

3

15.24 ± 3.94

-0.887

0.372

-0.804

mhc_social

1st

19

15.68 ± 5.36

20

14.85 ± 5.36

0.630

0.216

mhc_social

2nd

4

19.07 ± 5.30

-0.876

3

13.75 ± 5.30

0.283

0.206

1.375

mhc_psychological

1st

19

22.63 ± 5.90

20

23.50 ± 5.90

0.648

-0.164

mhc_psychological

2nd

4

24.37 ± 6.60

-0.329

3

23.04 ± 6.66

0.088

0.794

0.253

resilisnce

1st

19

17.16 ± 4.83

20

17.30 ± 4.83

0.927

-0.107

resilisnce

2nd

4

17.47 ± 2.77

-0.236

3

14.84 ± 2.55

1.852

0.205

1.981

social_provision

1st

19

13.79 ± 3.21

20

13.70 ± 3.21

0.931

0.102

social_provision

2nd

4

13.59 ± 1.84

0.226

3

14.44 ± 1.69

-0.844

0.533

-0.968

els_value_living

1st

19

17.26 ± 3.05

20

17.50 ± 3.05

0.810

-0.404

els_value_living

2nd

4

17.03 ± 1.58

0.396

3

17.21 ± 1.41

0.495

0.876

-0.305

els_life_fulfill

1st

19

12.58 ± 3.33

20

13.90 ± 3.33

0.224

-1.049

els_life_fulfill

2nd

4

13.32 ± 2.20

-0.587

3

14.20 ± 2.08

-0.238

0.595

-0.701

els

1st

19

29.84 ± 5.71

20

31.40 ± 5.71

0.400

-1.009

els

2nd

4

30.25 ± 3.26

-0.264

3

31.31 ± 2.99

0.061

0.660

-0.684

social_connect

1st

19

26.00 ± 10.53

20

26.60 ± 10.53

0.860

-0.309

social_connect

2nd

4

30.52 ± 5.41

-2.332

3

32.99 ± 4.80

-3.294

0.528

-1.272

shs_agency

1st

19

14.42 ± 4.82

20

14.50 ± 4.82

0.959

-0.067

shs_agency

2nd

4

16.96 ± 2.66

-2.142

3

15.06 ± 2.42

-0.477

0.335

1.598

shs_pathway

1st

19

16.63 ± 3.68

20

17.20 ± 3.68

0.632

-0.402

shs_pathway

2nd

4

17.65 ± 2.44

-0.720

3

17.95 ± 2.32

-0.528

0.872

-0.210

shs

1st

19

31.05 ± 7.86

20

31.70 ± 7.86

0.799

-0.515

shs

2nd

4

34.57 ± 3.94

-2.796

3

32.54 ± 3.46

-0.665

0.473

1.617

esteem

1st

19

12.84 ± 1.14

20

12.40 ± 1.14

0.231

0.426

esteem

2nd

4

13.06 ± 1.28

-0.207

3

12.45 ± 1.29

-0.053

0.544

0.580

mlq_search

1st

19

15.79 ± 3.22

20

15.25 ± 3.22

0.604

0.326

mlq_search

2nd

4

16.03 ± 2.53

-0.145

3

15.96 ± 2.47

-0.428

0.971

0.042

mlq_presence

1st

19

14.79 ± 3.94

20

13.05 ± 3.94

0.177

1.604

mlq_presence

2nd

4

14.63 ± 2.26

0.146

3

11.68 ± 2.08

1.261

0.086

2.719

mlq

1st

19

30.58 ± 6.43

20

28.30 ± 6.43

0.276

0.903

mlq

2nd

4

30.76 ± 4.32

-0.071

3

27.79 ± 4.12

0.201

0.369

1.176

empower

1st

19

20.74 ± 4.27

20

19.80 ± 4.27

0.498

0.883

empower

2nd

4

20.31 ± 2.37

0.398

3

18.92 ± 2.15

0.834

0.422

1.319

ismi_resistance

1st

19

15.16 ± 2.78

20

15.00 ± 2.78

0.860

0.078

ismi_resistance

2nd

4

14.23 ± 2.77

0.458

3

15.56 ± 2.77

-0.276

0.536

-0.657

ismi_discrimation

1st

19

12.11 ± 3.13

20

10.30 ± 3.13

0.080

0.904

ismi_discrimation

2nd

4

11.06 ± 2.85

0.522

3

10.38 ± 2.82

-0.038

0.755

0.344

sss_affective

1st

19

9.84 ± 4.35

20

9.15 ± 4.35

0.622

0.587

sss_affective

2nd

4

9.81 ± 2.48

0.031

3

8.46 ± 2.28

0.583

0.465

1.139

sss_behavior

1st

19

10.32 ± 4.51

20

8.95 ± 4.51

0.351

1.080

sss_behavior

2nd

4

9.76 ± 2.61

0.441

3

8.31 ± 2.40

0.509

0.453

1.147

sss_cognitive

1st

19

7.58 ± 4.14

20

8.30 ± 4.14

0.590

-0.345

sss_cognitive

2nd

4

10.07 ± 3.22

-1.191

3

6.88 ± 3.14

0.681

0.209

1.527

sss

1st

19

27.74 ± 12.15

20

26.40 ± 12.15

0.733

0.368

sss

2nd

4

29.39 ± 7.20

-0.454

3

24.02 ± 6.67

0.656

0.319

1.478

Between group

recovery_stage_a

1st

t(38.95) = -0.20, p = 0.839, Cohen d = 0.11, 95% CI (-0.86 to 0.70)

2st

t(13.89) = 0.64, p = 0.531, Cohen d = -0.72, 95% CI (-1.17 to 2.18)

recovery_stage_b

1st

t(37.53) = -0.26, p = 0.799, Cohen d = 0.26, 95% CI (-2.01 to 1.56)

2st

t(20.46) = 1.01, p = 0.322, Cohen d = -1.42, 95% CI (-1.31 to 3.81)

ras_confidence

1st

t(37.63) = 0.39, p = 0.702, Cohen d = -0.36, 95% CI (-2.34 to 3.44)

2st

t(18.50) = 0.65, p = 0.522, Cohen d = -0.88, 95% CI (-2.99 to 5.69)

ras_willingness

1st

t(38.03) = -0.58, p = 0.565, Cohen d = 0.43, 95% CI (-1.69 to 0.94)

2st

t(14.94) = 0.20, p = 0.843, Cohen d = -0.25, 95% CI (-2.07 to 2.50)

ras_goal

1st

t(37.51) = -0.37, p = 0.712, Cohen d = 0.38, 95% CI (-2.29 to 1.58)

2st

t(20.83) = 0.08, p = 0.935, Cohen d = -0.12, 95% CI (-2.64 to 2.86)

ras_reliance

1st

t(37.42) = 0.08, p = 0.940, Cohen d = -0.09, 95% CI (-2.03 to 2.18)

2st

t(23.47) = 0.61, p = 0.548, Cohen d = -0.91, 95% CI (-2.01 to 3.69)

ras_domination

1st

t(39.66) = -2.14, p = 0.038, Cohen d = 1.03, 95% CI (-3.22 to -0.09)

2st

t(15.36) = 1.09, p = 0.291, Cohen d = -1.17, 95% CI (-1.78 to 5.56)

symptom

1st

t(37.24) = 0.66, p = 0.512, Cohen d = -0.98, 95% CI (-4.69 to 9.24)

2st

t(32.30) = 1.47, p = 0.150, Cohen d = -2.61, 95% CI (-2.32 to 14.48)

slof_work

1st

t(37.32) = -0.99, p = 0.327, Cohen d = 1.28, 95% CI (-4.87 to 1.67)

2st

t(27.74) = -0.00, p = 0.996, Cohen d = 0.01, 95% CI (-4.17 to 4.15)

slof_relationship

1st

t(37.49) = -1.10, p = 0.278, Cohen d = 1.15, 95% CI (-5.66 to 1.67)

2st

t(21.36) = 1.16, p = 0.258, Cohen d = -1.66, 95% CI (-2.27 to 8.03)

satisfaction

1st

t(37.55) = 0.99, p = 0.327, Cohen d = -0.98, 95% CI (-2.31 to 6.76)

2st

t(19.98) = 0.43, p = 0.670, Cohen d = -0.60, 95% CI (-5.21 to 7.93)

mhc_emotional

1st

t(41.99) = 0.76, p = 0.452, Cohen d = -0.25, 95% CI (-1.37 to 3.03)

2st

t(41.80) = 0.90, p = 0.372, Cohen d = -0.80, 95% CI (-3.35 to 8.77)

mhc_social

1st

t(40.12) = -0.49, p = 0.630, Cohen d = 0.22, 95% CI (-4.31 to 2.64)

2st

t(17.12) = -1.31, p = 0.206, Cohen d = 1.37, 95% CI (-13.85 to 3.22)

mhc_psychological

1st

t(41.62) = 0.46, p = 0.648, Cohen d = -0.16, 95% CI (-2.95 to 4.69)

2st

t(31.98) = -0.26, p = 0.794, Cohen d = 0.25, 95% CI (-11.66 to 8.98)

resilisnce

1st

t(37.39) = 0.09, p = 0.927, Cohen d = -0.11, 95% CI (-2.99 to 3.28)

2st

t(24.51) = -1.30, p = 0.205, Cohen d = 1.98, 95% CI (-6.80 to 1.54)

social_provision

1st

t(37.38) = -0.09, p = 0.931, Cohen d = 0.10, 95% CI (-2.18 to 2.00)

2st

t(24.87) = 0.63, p = 0.533, Cohen d = -0.97, 95% CI (-1.91 to 3.60)

els_value_living

1st

t(37.19) = 0.24, p = 0.810, Cohen d = -0.40, 95% CI (-1.74 to 2.22)

2st

t(36.04) = 0.16, p = 0.876, Cohen d = -0.30, 95% CI (-2.12 to 2.48)

els_life_fulfill

1st

t(37.76) = 1.24, p = 0.224, Cohen d = -1.05, 95% CI (-0.84 to 3.48)

2st

t(16.81) = 0.54, p = 0.595, Cohen d = -0.70, 95% CI (-2.56 to 4.32)

els

1st

t(37.38) = 0.85, p = 0.400, Cohen d = -1.01, 95% CI (-2.15 to 5.26)

2st

t(25.05) = 0.45, p = 0.660, Cohen d = -0.68, 95% CI (-3.83 to 5.94)

social_connect

1st

t(37.17) = 0.18, p = 0.860, Cohen d = -0.31, 95% CI (-6.24 to 7.44)

2st

t(37.20) = 0.64, p = 0.528, Cohen d = -1.27, 95% CI (-5.38 to 10.31)

shs_agency

1st

t(37.31) = 0.05, p = 0.959, Cohen d = -0.07, 95% CI (-3.05 to 3.21)

2st

t(28.19) = -0.98, p = 0.335, Cohen d = 1.60, 95% CI (-5.84 to 2.06)

shs_pathway

1st

t(37.79) = 0.48, p = 0.632, Cohen d = -0.40, 95% CI (-1.82 to 2.95)

2st

t(16.55) = 0.16, p = 0.872, Cohen d = -0.21, 95% CI (-3.54 to 4.13)

shs

1st

t(37.13) = 0.26, p = 0.799, Cohen d = -0.51, 95% CI (-4.46 to 5.75)

2st

t(40.06) = -0.73, p = 0.473, Cohen d = 1.62, 95% CI (-7.70 to 3.63)

esteem

1st

t(41.73) = -1.22, p = 0.231, Cohen d = 0.43, 95% CI (-1.18 to 0.29)

2st

t(34.38) = -0.61, p = 0.544, Cohen d = 0.58, 95% CI (-2.60 to 1.39)

mlq_search

1st

t(38.49) = -0.52, p = 0.604, Cohen d = 0.33, 95% CI (-2.62 to 1.55)

2st

t(13.80) = -0.04, p = 0.971, Cohen d = 0.04, 95% CI (-4.17 to 4.03)

mlq_presence

1st

t(37.39) = -1.38, p = 0.177, Cohen d = 1.60, 95% CI (-4.30 to 0.82)

2st

t(24.52) = -1.79, p = 0.086, Cohen d = 2.72, 95% CI (-6.35 to 0.45)

mlq

1st

t(37.83) = -1.11, p = 0.276, Cohen d = 0.90, 95% CI (-6.45 to 1.89)

2st

t(16.23) = -0.92, p = 0.369, Cohen d = 1.18, 95% CI (-9.77 to 3.83)

empower

1st

t(37.32) = -0.68, p = 0.498, Cohen d = 0.88, 95% CI (-3.71 to 1.83)

2st

t(27.80) = -0.81, p = 0.422, Cohen d = 1.32, 95% CI (-4.92 to 2.12)

ismi_resistance

1st

t(40.24) = -0.18, p = 0.860, Cohen d = 0.08, 95% CI (-1.95 to 1.64)

2st

t(17.67) = 0.63, p = 0.536, Cohen d = -0.66, 95% CI (-3.12 to 5.79)

ismi_discrimation

1st

t(39.40) = -1.80, p = 0.080, Cohen d = 0.90, 95% CI (-3.83 to 0.22)

2st

t(14.65) = -0.32, p = 0.755, Cohen d = 0.34, 95% CI (-5.31 to 3.94)

sss_affective

1st

t(37.38) = -0.50, p = 0.622, Cohen d = 0.59, 95% CI (-3.51 to 2.13)

2st

t(24.95) = -0.74, p = 0.465, Cohen d = 1.14, 95% CI (-5.07 to 2.38)

sss_behavior

1st

t(37.41) = -0.95, p = 0.351, Cohen d = 1.08, 95% CI (-4.29 to 1.56)

2st

t(23.92) = -0.76, p = 0.453, Cohen d = 1.15, 95% CI (-5.38 to 2.48)

sss_cognitive

1st

t(38.43) = 0.54, p = 0.590, Cohen d = -0.34, 95% CI (-1.96 to 3.40)

2st

t(13.86) = -1.32, p = 0.209, Cohen d = 1.53, 95% CI (-8.40 to 2.01)

sss

1st

t(37.47) = -0.34, p = 0.733, Cohen d = 0.37, 95% CI (-9.22 to 6.55)

2st

t(22.04) = -1.02, p = 0.319, Cohen d = 1.48, 95% CI (-16.30 to 5.56)

Within treatment group

recovery_stage_a

1st vs 2st

t(7.32) = 1.28, p = 0.481, Cohen d = -1.03, 95% CI (-0.60 to 2.05)

recovery_stage_b

1st vs 2st

t(5.49) = 1.22, p = 0.542, Cohen d = -1.00, 95% CI (-0.91 to 2.66)

ras_confidence

1st vs 2st

t(5.59) = 0.49, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.40, 95% CI (-2.51 to 3.73)

ras_willingness

1st vs 2st

t(6.03) = -0.36, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.29, 95% CI (-2.00 to 1.49)

ras_goal

1st vs 2st

t(5.47) = 0.20, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.17, 95% CI (-1.75 to 2.06)

ras_reliance

1st vs 2st

t(5.38) = 1.05, p = 0.680, Cohen d = -0.85, 95% CI (-1.11 to 2.68)

ras_domination

1st vs 2st

t(8.75) = 1.31, p = 0.445, Cohen d = -1.05, 95% CI (-1.24 to 4.63)

symptom

1st vs 2st

t(5.21) = 0.53, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.43, 95% CI (-3.81 to 5.84)

slof_work

1st vs 2st

t(5.28) = -0.11, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.09, 95% CI (-2.70 to 2.48)

slof_relationship

1st vs 2st

t(5.45) = 1.07, p = 0.663, Cohen d = -0.87, 95% CI (-2.04 to 5.04)

satisfaction

1st vs 2st

t(5.51) = 1.17, p = 0.582, Cohen d = -0.95, 95% CI (-2.46 to 6.77)

mhc_emotional

1st vs 2st

t(30.92) = 1.25, p = 0.444, Cohen d = -0.89, 95% CI (-1.90 to 7.87)

mhc_social

1st vs 2st

t(10.00) = -0.36, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.28, 95% CI (-7.93 to 5.74)

mhc_psychological

1st vs 2st

t(19.51) = -0.12, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.09, 95% CI (-8.77 to 7.84)

resilisnce

1st vs 2st

t(5.35) = -2.27, p = 0.138, Cohen d = 1.85, 95% CI (-5.19 to 0.27)

social_provision

1st vs 2st

t(5.35) = 1.04, p = 0.690, Cohen d = -0.84, 95% CI (-1.06 to 2.53)

els_value_living

1st vs 2st

t(5.16) = -0.61, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.49, 95% CI (-1.51 to 0.93)

els_life_fulfill

1st vs 2st

t(5.73) = 0.29, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.24, 95% CI (-2.24 to 2.84)

els

1st vs 2st

t(5.34) = -0.08, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.06, 95% CI (-3.27 to 3.08)

social_connect

1st vs 2st

t(5.15) = 4.04, p = 0.019, Cohen d = -3.29, 95% CI (2.36 to 10.42)

shs_agency

1st vs 2st

t(5.28) = 0.59, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.48, 95% CI (-1.88 to 3.01)

shs_pathway

1st vs 2st

t(5.76) = 0.65, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.53, 95% CI (-2.10 to 3.59)

shs

1st vs 2st

t(5.11) = 0.81, p = 0.903, Cohen d = -0.66, 95% CI (-1.79 to 3.46)

esteem

1st vs 2st

t(21.31) = 0.07, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.05, 95% CI (-1.55 to 1.66)

mlq_search

1st vs 2st

t(6.63) = 0.53, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.43, 95% CI (-2.50 to 3.92)

mlq_presence

1st vs 2st

t(5.35) = -1.55, p = 0.357, Cohen d = 1.26, 95% CI (-3.60 to 0.86)

mlq

1st vs 2st

t(5.80) = -0.25, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.20, 95% CI (-5.57 to 4.56)

empower

1st vs 2st

t(5.28) = -1.02, p = 0.702, Cohen d = 0.83, 95% CI (-3.07 to 1.30)

ismi_resistance

1st vs 2st

t(10.36) = 0.35, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.28, 95% CI (-3.01 to 4.13)

ismi_discrimation

1st vs 2st

t(8.17) = 0.05, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.04, 95% CI (-3.61 to 3.76)

sss_affective

1st vs 2st

t(5.34) = -0.72, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.58, 95% CI (-3.11 to 1.74)

sss_behavior

1st vs 2st

t(5.37) = -0.62, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.51, 95% CI (-3.24 to 1.95)

sss_cognitive

1st vs 2st

t(6.54) = -0.84, p = 0.860, Cohen d = 0.68, 95% CI (-5.49 to 2.64)

sss

1st vs 2st

t(5.43) = -0.80, p = 0.909, Cohen d = 0.66, 95% CI (-9.82 to 5.05)

Within control group

recovery_stage_a

1st vs 2st

t(7.10) = 0.29, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.20, 95% CI (-1.01 to 1.30)

recovery_stage_b

1st vs 2st

t(5.45) = -0.97, p = 0.743, Cohen d = 0.69, 95% CI (-2.15 to 0.95)

ras_confidence

1st vs 2st

t(5.55) = -0.18, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.12, 95% CI (-2.90 to 2.52)

ras_willingness

1st vs 2st

t(5.94) = -1.38, p = 0.437, Cohen d = 0.97, 95% CI (-2.36 to 0.66)

ras_goal

1st vs 2st

t(5.44) = -0.47, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.33, 95% CI (-1.96 to 1.34)

ras_reliance

1st vs 2st

t(5.35) = 0.04, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.03, 95% CI (-1.62 to 1.67)

ras_domination

1st vs 2st

t(8.35) = -1.65, p = 0.271, Cohen d = 1.15, 95% CI (-4.41 to 0.71)

symptom

1st vs 2st

t(5.20) = -1.70, p = 0.296, Cohen d = 1.20, 95% CI (-6.98 to 1.39)

slof_work

1st vs 2st

t(5.26) = -1.93, p = 0.218, Cohen d = 1.36, 95% CI (-3.95 to 0.54)

slof_relationship

1st vs 2st

t(5.42) = -2.75, p = 0.074, Cohen d = 1.94, 95% CI (-6.44 to -0.30)

satisfaction

1st vs 2st

t(5.47) = 1.89, p = 0.226, Cohen d = -1.33, 95% CI (-0.99 to 7.02)

mhc_emotional

1st vs 2st

t(26.34) = 0.53, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.33, 95% CI (-3.20 to 5.42)

mhc_social

1st vs 2st

t(9.42) = 1.27, p = 0.468, Cohen d = -0.88, 95% CI (-2.59 to 9.36)

mhc_psychological

1st vs 2st

t(17.15) = 0.50, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.33, 95% CI (-5.57 to 9.05)

resilisnce

1st vs 2st

t(5.33) = 0.33, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.24, 95% CI (-2.06 to 2.68)

social_provision

1st vs 2st

t(5.32) = -0.32, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.23, 95% CI (-1.76 to 1.36)

els_value_living

1st vs 2st

t(5.15) = -0.56, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.40, 95% CI (-1.29 to 0.82)

els_life_fulfill

1st vs 2st

t(5.67) = 0.83, p = 0.878, Cohen d = -0.59, 95% CI (-1.46 to 2.94)

els

1st vs 2st

t(5.32) = 0.37, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.26, 95% CI (-2.34 to 3.16)

social_connect

1st vs 2st

t(5.14) = 3.30, p = 0.041, Cohen d = -2.33, 95% CI (1.03 to 8.01)

shs_agency

1st vs 2st

t(5.26) = 3.03, p = 0.054, Cohen d = -2.14, 95% CI (0.42 to 4.65)

shs_pathway

1st vs 2st

t(5.70) = 1.02, p = 0.697, Cohen d = -0.72, 95% CI (-1.45 to 3.49)

shs

1st vs 2st

t(5.10) = 3.96, p = 0.021, Cohen d = -2.80, 95% CI (1.25 to 5.79)

esteem

1st vs 2st

t(18.57) = 0.32, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.21, 95% CI (-1.20 to 1.63)

mlq_search

1st vs 2st

t(6.48) = 0.21, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.14, 95% CI (-2.55 to 3.03)

mlq_presence

1st vs 2st

t(5.33) = -0.21, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.15, 95% CI (-2.09 to 1.77)

mlq

1st vs 2st

t(5.74) = 0.10, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.07, 95% CI (-4.22 to 4.58)

empower

1st vs 2st

t(5.26) = -0.56, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.40, 95% CI (-2.32 to 1.48)

ismi_resistance

1st vs 2st

t(9.72) = -0.67, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.46, 95% CI (-4.06 to 2.19)

ismi_discrimation

1st vs 2st

t(7.84) = -0.75, p = 0.950, Cohen d = 0.52, 95% CI (-4.26 to 2.17)

sss_affective

1st vs 2st

t(5.32) = -0.04, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.03, 95% CI (-2.14 to 2.07)

sss_behavior

1st vs 2st

t(5.34) = -0.63, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.44, 95% CI (-2.81 to 1.69)

sss_cognitive

1st vs 2st

t(6.40) = 1.70, p = 0.275, Cohen d = -1.19, 95% CI (-1.05 to 6.03)

sss

1st vs 2st

t(5.39) = 0.64, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.45, 95% CI (-4.80 to 8.10)

Plot

Clinical significance